2007 (8) TMI 784 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the ex parte decree passed in favor of Saroja and her minor children operates as res judicata in the subsequent suit filed by the appellant.
2. Whether the conditions for res judicata u/s 11 of the CPC are satisfied.
3. Whether the ex parte decree can be considered as a final decision.
4. Whether the parties in both suits were litigating under the same title.

Summary:

Issue 1: Ex parte Decree as Res Judicata
The core question was whether the ex parte decree in favor of Saroja and her minor children would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit filed by the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the ex parte decree passed in the former suit during the pendency of the subsequent suit operates as res judicata. The appellant's title acquired from Kuppusamy was invalidated by the ex parte decree.

Issue 2: Conditions for Res Judicata u/s 11 of CPC
The Court examined the conditions for res judicata u/s 11 of the CPC:
(i) Two suits - one former and one subsequent.
(ii) Competent Court - the former suit was decided by a competent court.
(iii) Same matter in issue - the matter in both suits was directly and substantially the same.
(iv) Heard and finally decided - the ex parte decree was considered a final decision.
(v) Same parties or parties under whom they claim - the appellant claimed through Kuppusamy, satisfying this condition.
(vi) Same title - both parties litigated under the same title.

Issue 3: Ex parte Decree as Final Decision
The appellant argued that an ex parte decree could not be considered as "heard and finally decided." The Court disagreed, stating that an ex parte decree is binding and effective as a decree passed after contest unless obtained by fraud. The appellant did not allege fraud or collusion in her plaint, thus the ex parte decree was valid and satisfied Condition (iv).

Issue 4: Same Title in Both Suits
The Court held that the appellant, although not a party to the former suit, claimed through Kuppusamy, satisfying Condition (v). The parties in both suits litigated under the same title, fulfilling Condition (vi). The Court cited previous judgments to support this view, including Ishwardas Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Alagammal & Ors.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that all conditions for res judicata were satisfied. The ex parte decree in the former suit operated as res judicata, barring the subsequent suit filed by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.